Why do people still believe that the 1-5 rep range can't grow muscle?

>Low weight, high rep bro!
>High weight, low rep bro!

Neither are correct.

>Medium weight, extended reps, medium rep range

This is correct.

Care to elaborate a bit?

The problem with studies is that they're in controlled conditions. It's not to say that they're not right, only to say that a dozen studies that find the same thing under different sets of tightly controlled conditions don't account for everything, and don't have 100% accuracy.
After six years of lifting, trying different rep ranges and hitting various different goals, I know what works best for me for which goals, and 5 rep range can be useful, but it is definitely NOT as effective for building muscle for me, for a fairly simple reason, and that is fatigue.
If I push 5x5 heavy, it takes time, and energy, and prevents me from hitting maximum volume or from properly hitting my accessory lifts. If I lift 4x8 or even 5x10 at moderate weights, I hit more volume, in less time, with a stronger mind-muscle connection and I'm less fatigued for the follow-up to the training.
If it were a flat, equal volume workout of 5 rep sets versus 8-12 rep sets, yeah, 5 rep sets may be equally effective, but there is something to be said for practical experience over controlled studies when it comes to exercise physiology.

How about hitting 5 rep on compounds and 8-12 reps on accessories?

in my experience, the larger the muscle, the fewer reps and sets it needs to grow big. you can get massive legs from 5 rep sets on the squats, even 5x51x5 TM style will get you massive legs.

something like OHP doesn't respond well in terms of mass gain to 5s though IMO, at least not at typical numbers of sets. 10x5 maybe, any less probably not

If you're maxing out strength at the 5x5 then you're still going to be over-fatigued for the accessories. It reduces overall workout volume in the long run while also reducing the quality of movement for accessories.
Comparing directly, same volume 6x5 versus 3x10, taking nothing else into consideration, I have no doubt that the 5 rep range is equally effective. But when you take the entire workout into perspective, and actually think about training goals and manipulation of weight-to-reps for optimizing volume, it doesn't add up to do 5x5, even for power lifters. Power lifters benefit more greatly from "greasing the groove" training and hitting heavy doubles and triples at the top of pyramids. 5 rep range is most effective for learning to lift.

Honestly I'm trying to get a lot of strength then maybe later i'll switch for a PPL for maximum mass gain, So I'm not sure if i should switch to 5/3/1 or PPL. Should you work all your body 3 times a week even if you're intermediate to advanced?

Because training with heavy weights is TOUGH, and it feels like you might die any second.

AND, if you lift 3 rep sets in the gym people will see how fucking pathetic your strength really is,

these are the two only actual reasons for people wasting their time with 8 rep meme workouts (also why the same people typically do dumbbell bench), to avoid showing how fucking weak you are to your peers

prove me wrong

> than hypertrophy
no
it is better for strength, and hypertrophy is about the same

Monday- bench & assistance
Tues- squat and deadlift
Wed- deadlift and bench
thurs- rest/stretching/mobility
Fri- bench and assistance
Sat- squat and assistance
Sun- deadlift and squat+ assistance

typical non meme split, all workouts are >80% max

>AND, if you lift 3 rep sets in the gym people will see how fucking pathetic your strength really is,

How? I you lift 3 reps you are lifting a higher rm% than with 8reps, there you would look stronger

>80% max deadlifts 3 times per week

i find 5x5 to be pretty manageable desu. i just hit my main lifts at 5x5 or 8x3 or whatever is called for that particular day (doing greg nuckols' 28 free program) and do the accessory lifts for another body part after. i don't see much merit in doing all your shit in one day because your last sets and exercises are going to be too weak to do optimal work. this is kind of similar to the 531 variation that has you doing 53/1 bench + OHP accessory, 531 squat + deadlift accessory etc. some crossover is there but its not as bad as with 531 bench + bench accessory for example.

also post lifts.

My maximum lifts at 5'10" and about 230 pounds BW (yeah I was a fat fuck) were:
Squat: 495
Deadlift: 535
Bench: 325
All for triples.
Didn't OHP heavy
My current lifts at 5'10" and 180lbs are
Bench: 265
Squat: 365
Deadlift: 455
All for triples
DB Shoulder press: 95s for 6

because if you pump out 12 rep on sone random weight people will assume its nowhere near your max

if you go beet red straining a few reps out at a low weight ppl will realize you are close to your max..

i'd be interested to see how you program your strength training

i've always been interested in PPL but the only routines i ever made strength gains on were strength routines made by guys who are much better at factoring in volume, fatigue etc than i am. always wondered how guy who get strong from PPL manage to program them efficiently.

what looks like a more impressivesquat to you - 235 for 15 reps or 405 for 3?

As a newbie idiot, should I be doing 5 reps or 8 reps?

Would it make sense to do two weeks 8-15 reps and one week 5 reps with the same routine?

>normie friend only benches once a week due to some bullshit split
>when you tell him about muscle protein synthesis as a natty being shorter than on roids he call you out on not being as lean as him
>tells me not to squat so low while only doing 50kg half reps

225 x 3 with proper form

for Veeky Forums those 3 "reps" at 405 would be 1/4th squats at best

Depends for what nigger. 3x5 on lateral raises is fucking retarded

Because doing everything in that rep range is kind of stupid and will slow your progress.
t. powerlifter

strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/

>what is the texas method

Thanks bud

total volume matters.
lets say your 1rm is 100kg and you do 3x5 with 85kg, the total volume will be 1275kg.
If you use the same 1rm and you do 5x10 with 60kg, the total volume will be 3000kg.
The lower reps range can't create enough total volume for muscle growth without massive amounts of kcal(food and training are anabolic).
But you should cycle your rep ranges, since muscle growth will stall with only high or low weight.

A training method with different rep ranges for accessories and main lifts?

what is gaining lots of weight, because the anabolic response of training is too low and that is why you have to bulk like a madman to get the muscle growth.

That's tonnage not volume

sets x reps x weight
total volume is widely used by lifters and trainers.

I don't do PPL. My strength training is primarily pyramids, with a heavy triple at the top, I try and train squat and bench twice per week and deadlifts once per week with high intensity cardio twice per week while eating at a surplus.

>sets x reps x weight
That's tonnage. Volume is reps x sets. Your original post is right in concept but the word is wrong

is that a joke? a3=volume that is the gist behind it.
muscleandstrength.com/articles/beyond-sets-and-reps-look-at-training-volume.html

Yeah, everybody else in the world calls it tonnage though

Tonnage=Intensity, higher % of max = higher intensity
Volume=number of reps
Frequency=number of sessions/week/muscle compartment

It depends IMO, you have to balance out, but keeping the total volume between 50-100 reps per movement, total intensity at 70-90%, and moderate frequency (aka main lifts twice or thrice per week, and all accessories twice) it's best for me

that's not been my experience, i've done it for 10 months ans have gained 6kg in that time (82kg to 88kg) and have pushed my squat to over 192.5kg for 5 reps and my bench to 127.5kg for 5 reps. VD is 5x5 and ID is 1x5 just as rip prescribes.

people who hate on the texas method normally have shit genetics or simply haven't done it, desu. is it optimal? no, my press and DL progress isn't worth posting about, but my point is that 5s are by no means obsolete to an intermediate, and especially not a beginner.

>deadlift three times a week

>also why the same people typically do dumbbell bench

I do dumbbell bench because I don't want to ask for a spotter but I want to lift at my limit.

When it comes to natties, big guys lift big weights.

Every 4-6 weeks i change my workouts completely. With that being said I change from doing hypertrophy workout to strength. Doing strength workout i often do a lot of compound exercises. Doing hypertrophy i do a lot more isolation exercises and but little compound.

>no abstract

Can you please share your routine?
Sets and reps for bench and squat?

>AND, if you lift 3 rep sets in the gym people will see how fucking pathetic your strength really is
What kind of logic is this? When I do a single set of deadlifts at 3.5 pl8 that will turn more normie heads than someone doing 2 pl8 for reps.

kek
do you actually think a guy that wrote shit like that could diddly 3.5 pl8?

because a lot of guys take it as "always go for a 1-5RM" and end up snapping their shit up or overreaching.

If you can do high volume you're not doing high intensity

that is why you do a LP routine

Do your reps slowly.

Bench:
1x20 with bar, strong focus on mind-muscle connection, strong back platform, stacked shoulders, pushing through pecs and triceps
1x15 135, same as set 1 but to get a feel for a little bit of weight.
1x12 185, tighten up the back and start to push properly
8 at 225
6 at 245 this is where you start really engaging for strength.
4-5 at 255
3 at 265
8 at 225
12 at 185
12 at 135
It takes a while, it's a ton of volume, but you get to pushing decent weight while also pumping out a ton of reps.
Squats is similar rep scheme but weights are bar, 135, 225, 275 for 10, 315 for 8, 335 for 6, 345 for 4, 365 for 3, 315 for 10, 225 for 12, 135 for 12.
It is not a scientifically researched or sourceable routine, but it is a routine I've developed over the years that has given me the best results.

>1-5
>not doing -2-0 for maximal strength gains

>years
>265x3 bench
breh...not to be too insulting but that's not the best progress

It's just hard to get enough volume with 1-5 reps. Consider 5x5 @ 85% vs. 12x2 @ 95%. After 5x5 you'll be tired but you'd only need a couple of minutes between sets and still have plenty of energy left over to hit all your accessories whereas 12x2 is gonna take fucking forever and you'll be totally trashed afterward. You can absolutely build muscle that way but it's just not the most efficient way to do it.

If he's doing 265x3 then his max is probably 285-295. That's perfectly good progress in a few years.

I don't have a gym buddy so going high weight low rep can be a bit unnerving. So I tend to go mid range with medium weight and medium rep.

Thats probaby a good idea. I spent first year doing Greyskull and then I felt I want to add more accesories and workout more often so I switched to PPL. But I believe that if I started with my current routine I wouldnt be able to handle the volume, so I am glad that I started with strength routine.

>high volume
>intensity
okay budd

3 sets of 31 reps with 10 kg

is better than

3 sets of 3 reps with 100 kg

You mean this chart?

You're full of shit.

Time under tension ?

...

that's because almost every person does a 3-4 exercise bro split at 8-10 reps and doesn't know any better

I don't think anybody on this board knows what high volume is

>9 reps is the holy grail
Fuck me, I've always performed even reps

>le high volume high intensity
it's shite,

everything you said is wrong

WHY DO 8 REPS WHEN I CAN DO 0 REPS AND GROW MUSCLE AT HALF THE SPEED!

>going to the gym

It's not my maximum, but it's what I hit at the top of the pyramid. Before I cut weight starting in January my triple was 315, and I train with high volume accessories after that. I'd be interested to see the physique of people who make criticisms like that, because it seems pretty obvious that you don't understand much about training.

Pyramids: How to be Mediocre at Lifting

Is your work capacity really so shit you can't do 5x5? Lmao

wasn't trying to be an asshole, just talking from experience. i ran SS then the texas method and i can throw 315 through the roof, though i do have a genetic predisposition towards a good bench i think. i weigh what you weigh now also.

i said what i said because that max triple isn't what i had experienced and writing off my post as someone who doesn't know anything about training cause they don't have the same (in my opinion, slow) rate of progress is retarded. however that being said, its not a bad bench at all and is probably a hell of a lot higher than most of fit/'s.

3x3 high tier?

>was already pretty big when I started lifting
>wanted to get stronger without getting bigger (for gymnastics stuff, hand stand push ups and planche)
>started 5X3
>got big
>now swole and not athletic
kill me

Thank you, /thread.

You can "grow muscle". But you grow more muscle with a higher rep range.

There are a lot of tiny dyel powerlifters who can throw up really heavy weights, but don't look muscular.

There are also natty bodybuilders who look big, but can't lift heavy.

Just like how there are guys who can train themselves to do 100 pushups, but you see very little muscle increase. It's also like training for a marathon; you don't get in great shape, you just train your body into performing the work it needs to do.

I think a better question is why do SS-fags keep swearing that they are making just as much progress as someone on a bodybuilding routine.

Because its a strength routine and nobody is saying its a bodybuilding routine other than people who can't tell the difference.

Well, considering you made reference to my years training I assumed you read the rest of my post, which talks about how I do lots of high volume accessory work as well. If I was going to go max effort on my compounds, I'm really not sure what they'd be, but pyramids are ideal for natural bodybuilding training, though not necessarily the best choice for strength training.

what the FUG, m8

nothing in your post is remotely true

NO, there are no powerlifters in the 80kg class who can beat anybody in a higher weight class

there are no pro BBers who can't squat over 200kg

fugs sake, m8

>SS-fag trying to justify his pathetic existence again

i guess if your focus is bodybuilding then that's normal progress. i always make the mistake of thinking everyone is trying to get stronger as a priority

>go to original article
>Gains in strength and muscular endurance are still very much tied to the rep range used.

>I am by no means the most knowledgeable person about physiology or research interpretation, nor am I especially strong or experienced compared to many competitive strength athletes.

>The patterns I see also seem to be a little bit at odds with what many very smart, very educated people in the strength world seem to see, so it’s possible I am incredibly, horribly wrong about all this.

>In the Campos study, the light loads did not produce as much (if any) hypertrophy as the heavier loads. However, the light load group also did fewer sets than the groups with heavier loads in an attempt to match volume-load.
>The rest of the studies generally matched the number of sets between groups
So the study is retarded because they heavy load group actually did MORE sets than the lighter load group.

In conclusion, yes obviously there's going to be little difference between someone doing 3x5 @ 90% versus someone doing 3x10 @ 30% if that's all their doing. But no one in the real world is lifting THAT light, and only doing ONE exercise. The hypertrophy 3x10 methods involve closer to 75%-85%, PLUS more single-joint exercises, which these studies didn't observe.

you better be back to bulking and getting those old at a lower bodyfat range

Pushing yourself on a bodybuilding type routine is arguably more challenging.

I didn't read a single line of your greentext, any way SS is meant for novice lifters and it's wonderful for CNS activation; a "bro split" for a natty novice won't bring any result. Luckily the "Ph.D. in Biology" agrees with me.

> that pic
> comparing a guy who's been lifting for years, is roiding and is in contest shape to an already fat dude who's done SS for a couple of months

>So the study is retarded
You are retarded.

>So the study is retarded because they heavy load group actually did MORE sets than the lighter load group.
Did you ever lift anything in your life? Volume was matched, that's all it matters. MORE sets with HEAVIER weights BUT FEWER reps. A lot fewer. 5*5*(90%1RM)=22.5 1RM ; 3*12*(67%1RM)=24.12 1RM
Pottery! The light load groups does fewer sets AND still gets more volume!

KYS my man

Well the greentext is from the actual article written by the guy who created the image that gets posted here by people claiming that low reps is better and that strength training causes just as much hypertrophy and there's no truth to rep ranges for muscle mass vs strength.

So you might want to read the greentext, or even the entire article, because the author says something very different.

Also this:
strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/
He recommends 8-15 reps on all exercises.

SS-fags BTFO.